Extract numbering definitions from a DOCX document to use list and outline styles in your processing workflow.
Get numbering
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "docx.numbering_get"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but there is no detail about return format, whether all numbering is returned, or any side effects. The behavior is essentially just restating the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides no useful information beyond the tool name and lacks the contextual structure needed for an agent to invoke it confidently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should describe what 'numbering' means and what the caller should expect in the return value. It does neither, leaving the tool's complete behavior uncertain despite the tool having zero parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes the input contract. With no parameters, the description has little to add; the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing from parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description has a verb ('Get') and a resource ('numbering'), and it distinguishes from the sibling 'docx.numbering_set' via the get/set contrast. However, 'numbering' is ambiguous and underspecified: it does not clarify whether this retrieves numbering definitions, numbering properties, or a specific numbering part.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives like docx.numbering_set or other read tools, no prerequisites, and no indication of expected context or output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.